‘A convicted client has failed in a bid to make his former solicitors stump up the bill for his £450,000 fine imposed in the Crown court. In Day v Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP Her Honour Judge Deborah Taylor, sitting in the High Court, struck out the negligence claim by landowner Philip Day.’

‘The families of three wrongly deported Windrush victims who died before UK officials were able to repatriate them will be able to claim compensation, the immigration minister has told the House of Commons.’

‘A residence qualification set by Hillingdon Council stating that only households with at least 10 years’ continuous residence in-borough could qualify to join the three-welfare-based bands of its housing register was unlawful, a High Court judge has ruled.’

‘Mrs S was the wife of Mr S, married in 2011. (Mrs S had leave to remain in the UK but no recourse to public funds, just to explain some odd bits along the way). In June 2014, Mr S took an assured shorthold tenancy of a flat from Mr K, the landlord for a 12 month term. The rent was paid from Mr S’ housing benefit.’

‘Britain and other European countries have been accused of breaching international law, as it emerged that the number of asylum seekers forced to return to Afghanistan has tripled at a time when civilian casualties in the country are at a record high.’

‘The defendant, Islington Borough Council, maintained an allocation scheme which provided that certain categories of people were excluded from joining the housing register, including those who had lived in the borough for less than three out of the previous five years. However, the scheme allowed for exceptions to be made. In particular, in respect of homeless applicants to whom a long-term housing duty under Part 7 Housing Act 1996 had been accepted.’

‘On 20 July 2016 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42. The effect of the majority’s decision is to over-rule Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340, which for more than two decades stood as authority for the “reliance test” applicable to the illegality defence. Under that test, where a claimant is obliged to rely on his own illegal act in support of his claim – be it in contract, tort or unjust enrichment – a defence of illegality could, subject to certain exceptions, successfully be established.’

‘On the legal front, the current debate focuses on the question of who has the legal authority to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin the Brexit process. Some argue (quite convincingly) that only Parliament has this authority (and see Barber, Hickman, and King’s post). Others argue that Government, and in fact the Prime Minister, acting under the Royal Prerogative, can act without the approval of Parliament. The latter is, apparently, the view of Government’s lawyers.’

‘More than 7 years after Gordon Brown first announced that a public Inquiry would be conducted to identify lessons that could be learned from the Iraq conflict, the Chilcot report was finally published on7 July 2016. However, it was worth the wait. This post does not seek to summarise the report: there are many other good overviews (such as the BBC’s ). The report’s executive summary, in particular the key findings section, is also well worth a read. The intention is to cover in this and subsequent posts some of the key legal issues raised by the report. This post considers the relevance of the Chilcot report’s findings to the broader issue of whether Britain’s intervention in Iraq was legal – an issue which was not itself within the remit of the inquiry.’

‘It is fairly well-established in competition cases that the hypothetical counterfactual – which, for the purposes of causation, posits what the situation would have been absent any breach of competition law – cannot contain unlawful elements: see e.g. Albion Water Ltd v Dwr Cymru [2013] CAT 6. In a normal case, C will claim damages, arguing – let’s say – that D abused a dominant position by imposing discriminatory prices. D defends the claim on the basis that, absent any abuse, it would have set prices at a certain (high) level. C replies that those prices too would have been discriminatory – i.e. the counterfactual is inappropriate.’

‘The Court of Appeal says “yes”, it is generally lawful to detain immigration detainees in prisons rather than detention centres. The case is R (On the Application Of Idira) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1187 and the Court rules that there is no principle that administrative immigration detention in prison generally breaches Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to liberty. In giving judgment, though, the Master of the Rolls acknowledges that “detention in an IRC is generally more appropriate for immigrant detainees than detention in prison”.’

Sign up for the daily email

“So many sources, so little time…THE leading resource for keeping lawyers on top of the legal news, commentary and authorities, Current Awareness from the expert Inner Temple librarians, is indispensable. “